A Tale of Two States
Coming back to roost from a season of
volunteerism for pro-same-sex marriage campaigns, I honestly thought I would be
writing a very different column. The
greater struggle for marriage and equality should have been in Minnesota, not
in Illinois. After all, Minnesota had
Michelle Bachmann and a large Tea Party Caucus with which to contend.
What happened?
I propose that there are three key
differences between the Minnesota experience and that in Illinois. Minnesota did not have prior “civil unions”
on which to fall back, Minnesota’s pro-same-sex marriage coalition was broad
and deep, and Minnesota’s LGBTQ community is not irrevocably tied to the Democratic
Party (DFL). In fact, Libertarians and Independents
formed a significant block of pro-same-sex marriage supporters in Minnesota.
Last fall, on-line interactions between
bloggist Will Kohler and IL State Representative Rita Mayfield indicate key
differences between Illinois’ challenge and Minnesota’s movement from
struggling to defeat an anti-gay amendment to passing full marriage equality. Mayfield’s now famous comment is… “A
civil union between two men or two women is supposed to be fundamentally the
same as a civil union between a man and a women[sic]. What am I missing?”
 |
| IL Rep Rita Mayfield (D) |
Mayfield seemingly felt that gays and lesbians already had it all. She was barraged by religious lobbyists while
according to her comments, no one from her district had yet bothered to sit
down with her to discuss how the differences between same-sex unions and
marriage-equality impact their personal lives as her constituents.
In Minnesota, I watched the floor debate in Sen Jim Carlson’s office
with a couple, Jim and Steve, who had personally taken the time to confront
Carlson with the issue and to educate him with the real-life consequences of not
being able to marry to his constituents.
Carlson admits that they changed his mind.
To many outside of the LGBTQ community, civil unions for gays seem like
a huge “gift” to a new-fangled and still too-little understood minority
group.
Mayfield should be better educated on the issues. It is her job. But, she is hardly alone.
Chicago’s Sean Smith, an astute political observer, points out that the
existence of civil unions in Illinois changes the game plan there. Politicians from difficult or even
inconvenient districts might hope to simply wait and let the US Supreme Court
do the dirty work for them.
Mayfield might just be choosing to not see the light until after the Supreme
Court rules and she can blame the need to do her job on others.
The second major difference is that Minnesota was able to establish and
maintain a deep and broad coalition of same-sex marriage supporters based on
the recent shared campaign (2012) to defeat twin anti-civil rights amendments
to the state constitution – one targeting gay marriage and the other targeting
recent immigrants.
The difference between Minnesota and Illinois was stark in this
regard. While Chicagoans were seemingly
unable to find support amongst the African-American Caucus or to effectively
fracture the edifice of Catholic-supported politicians, conservatives in
Minnesota had done much of the work for the LGBTQ community.
By election time, the Roman Catholic hierarchy had effectively alienated
its fastest growing demographic amongst Latino voters while everyone was able
to clearly see that those who would deny civil rights to one group, would
actively seek to deny them to others. We
were all in the same boat.
Minnesotans were amazed to see “Vote No!” signs thickly displayed in
Hmong, Latino, African-American and even Somali neighborhoods and
businesses. “Vote No!” became a rallying
cry for all who believe in civil rights and their expansion… ethnic minorities,
religious persons of conscience, civil libertarians, students, recent
immigrants, religious minorities… the campaign was not one to vote in same-sex marriage
equality, but rather to “Vote No!” against discrimination – OF ALL KINDS!
At the same time, one does not have to be in Chicago long to understand
that deep racial and economic divisions exist both within the city and within the
LGBTQ community. One simply cannot go
from discussing the need to ban minority youth from gathering at the community
center to expecting their support for LGBTQ equality. One cannot celebrate racially segregated PRIDE
events and hope to present a unified front to the community’s common enemies of
discrimination and prejudice.
Finally, I have a media friend in Minneapolis who speaks of having
shocked Governor Mark Dayton with the fact that up to 25% of the LGBTQ
community votes Republican and that Dayton might be pro-gay, but that of the
first three pro-gay governors in Minnesota, he is the first Democrat. (The other two being Republican Arne Carlson
and Independent Party founder, Jesse Ventura.)
 |
| Steve and Jim watch vote from MN Sen Carlson's Office |
It was no secret that the pro-same-sex marriage coalition was
instrumental in establishing the current Democratic majority in both
legislative houses in Minnesota, nor was it a secret that if the Democrats
failed to act on this and other legislation, that the coalition would not be
there for them in 2014.
Nor did it go unrecognized that significant blocks of support for gay
marriage had been built up amongst Libertarian and Republican voters who did
not dominate their parties but were yet too large a voice to ignore and whose
ranks only promised to increase in the future.
Democratic politicians and fund-raisers got the message, and Minnesota
got marriage equality.
The situation was different in Illinois. As Mayfield states, the gay advocacy alliance had failed to organize her
district. Why should she want to
organize a divisive event on her own turf?
Not her responsibility.
Nor is the failure to establish the necessary votes in the House a
failing of Rep. David Harris, at least not his alone.
The rest of the nation reads the failed marriage equality attempt as
reflective of the Democratic Party in Illinois’ ambivalence towards its gay
supporters. The party condoned Harris’
attempt to build up a base in the House to pass the bill, but did relatively
little to back him up.
The failure in this case goes beyond Harris to the desks of Governor Pat
Quinn, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and even Chicago-resident, President Barak Obama. All of these people were publically on the record
as being pro-marriage equality.
Individually, each should have been a formidable advocate. Together, the three should be
unopposable.
One is tempted to see the failure of same-sex marriage equality in his
home state as yet another sign of Obama’s politically-stuck leadership. At best, one can look at the trio and wonder
who, if anyone, is in charge or able to take charge. Not the most hopeful message to outside
observers.
I still think that Illinois will have marriage equality by November,
whether imposed by the US Supreme Court or voted on in August, or November, it
is still likely to pass. But unlike the
hopeful, fresh and inspiring spirit Minnesota now has in having worked hard to
succeed in an effort well-done, Illinois’ best efforts will remain tainted by
political wrangling, ambivalent political leadership and an more deeply divided
social fabric.
Minnesota and Illinois provide contrasting examples of how the LGBTQ
community might engage the political process.
Illinois seemed to have all of the advantages, yet by digging in,
working hard, and taking responsibility for its own rights, Minnesota succeeded
where Illinois did not.
Rights must seemingly be demanded from a position of strength rather
than merely accepted from the hands of a benevolent political machine.
In the end, everything seemingly depends on relationships. Minnesota was able to build effective
relationships with other groups, and as Mayfield predicted, Illinois was not.
No comments:
Post a Comment